Perspective: The need for thoughtful and nuanced rhetoric is ever more critical today.
We all need to take responsibility for the tone of political discourse Earlier this week, I criticized The Denver Post for publishing a letter to the editor I thought was over the line. They, surprisingly, responded to this criticism by allowing me to state my case.
In an age where the fissures between those with differing political views feel deeper than ever before, the need for thoughtful and nuanced rhetoric is ever more critical. It is incredibly satisfying to land a verbal jab squarely on the jaw of one’s political opponent, whichever side that may be. Sadly, in an age of increasing social media usage, instant gratification, and relentless outrage — it is far less satisfying to carefully consider our own words, as well as those around us.
Last Saturday, The Denver Post published a letter to the editor criticizing their editorial in support of Sen. Cory Gardner’s recent legislation with regard to Russia. The very act of publishing the words of those criticizing their stance demonstrates The Post’s dedication to journalistic integrity. The instinct of those at The Post to promote the various sides in a debate, even contrary to their own, should be lauded.
However, the letter The Post chose to publish contained a paragraph that crossed a line to which we should all adhere. It contained language implying execution might be on the table for President Donald Trump. It demonstrates, yet again, how overheated our interactions have become. The paragraph from the letter started by calling President Trump a traitor, then went on to state that Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed on less evidence than is had against the president and several in his administration.
Ultimately, I don’t believe this statement rose to the level of overtly calling for the execution of the president, and I don’t think most who read it interpreted it as such. Yet, many who read it did believe it skirted the edge of a suggestion. If the writer had said, “Others have been impeached on the basis of less evidence than is had on President Trump,” then the suggestion of impeachment would have been made. This writer, sadly, chose to use an example of execution.
I don’t believe it was the writer’s intent to make this argument, and believe that she, like many others in media, politics, Hollywood, and academia, has fallen prey to a new “hair on fire” normal in communication, particularly from the left, where open talk of violence is no longer taboo. The deep visceral hatred and underlying fear of our political foes have stripped away even the appearance of decorum.
Just last year, another Colorado newspaper, The Boulder Daily Camera, published a letter to the editor decrying the use of fracking in our state. In it, the writer asked a question, “If the oil and gas industry puts fracking wells in our neighborhoods, threatening our lives and our children’s lives, then don’t we have a moral responsibility to blow up wells and eliminate fracking and workers?”
The Camera later edited the letter to “dissuade frackers from operating” with a note the piece had been changed but offered no apology.
Violent language hidden in rhetorical devices like similes and questions doesn’t negate what is, at its root, violent. These tricks offer little more than plausible deniability for the writer.
Although letter writers have a legally protected (within certain restrictions) right to speak — our newspapers have no obligation to give these words, designed to incite, the oxygen and credibility garnered through the megaphone of having been published.
This emerging pattern of increasingly violent rhetoric is deeply concerning and requires we all resist it. This means we must police ourselves, and our political allies first. Writers, Facebookers, and tweeters are much more likely to take suggestions from those with whom they agree, and will often entrench when they feel they’re being attacked by an “other.” Ultimately, the responsibility lies with all of us
to improve our dialogue.